Legends & Lore: What Worked, What Didn't

[am181d]

Except the Wizard just memorizes both Fireball and Lightning Bolt and gets to choose which one they cast during the fight. So that's not actually how the game works according to the last packet.

With the number of spells that you can prepare at a premium, I haven't found that it's a good idea to memorize both of these spells. You need slots for utility spells as well. Those enchantments won't dispel themselves, you know!

 

[Desdichado]

Uh no. I quoted your post, but was generally addressing the people that can make a difference, you know, the developers. Don't take me quoting you to mean that I am addressing you directly, especially if it seems like I'm addressing someone else.

That would make a lot of sense. Well, actually it doesn't make any sense at all that you would quote my post, say that "I have to keep" certain things "in mind" and then later say that the fact that you were quoting my post was just an odd coincidence or something since you weren't actually talking to me or addressing anything in the content of my post.

But it does at least explain the incredible disconnect.

That's because most of the time I'm not advocating for 'my own preferences' I'm advocating for what will work best to make everyone happy with the game. I have only the best interests of D&D in mind. As of right now I wouldn't play 5E if someone paid me to (well I might, but I wouldn't like it). They will have to make quite a few changes to even bring it into a game I'd touch.

In this case, actually so was I. I certainly believe that the most people will be the most happy if the game is designed to emulate sword and sorcery and high fantasy adventure stories. Which usually means eliminating or at least seriously downplaying the possibility of a character being crippled or removed from play due to simple "dumb luck" accidents that don't have anything whatsoever to do with being adventerous. In the real world, climbing a ladder or opening a door isn't really adventurous, unless you attach some kind of extenuating circumstances to it.

In this case, I strongly believe that my preferences are widely and wildly common amongst players of D&D.

Least common denominator is what everyone refers to when WotC removes contentious things from the game in the hopes of getting enough people to like the game to make it profitable.

I know exactly what least common denominator means, thank you. I first learned of it in a mathematical sense over 35 years ago, and I first learned of it in a metaphorical sense... also about 30-35 years ago.

But I don't know why you brought that up, since that didn't really have anything to do with my point, unless you were trying to infer that playing D&D as if it were sword & sorcery or high fantasy adventure was "the least common denominator" and "elite players" or whatever played it in some other fashion. But feel free to correct my inference if you actually meant something else. I'd be happy to be wrong on this.

 

[Lokiare]

With the number of spells that you can prepare at a premium, I haven't found that it's a good idea to memorize both of these spells. You need slots for utility spells as well. Those enchantments won't dispel themselves, you know!

Really? you can prepare 1 spell per level which means 8 spells at level 8. There are very few useful spells to prepare in the 1st and 2nd level category, mainly utility spells. So you only need 1 or 2 of each of those. Then you prepare the most spells in levels 3 and 4 for the most choices at play time.

Seems like a no brainer. I mean there is literally no point in prepare a level 1 burning hands or magic missile when you can prepare a level 3 fireball or lightning bolt. Something like flaming sphere might get memorized every time, but that's just one slot.

I could see maybe grabbing one of these at levels 1 or 2:

1st-Fear, Charm Person, Disguise Self, Feather Fall, Grease, Identify
2nd-Darkvision, Flaming sphere,Hold Person, Invisibility, Knock, Mirror Image (if I wanted to off-tank), Scorching Burst (for use with a higher level slot).

At 3rd and 4th there isn't much to grab:

3rd-Blink, Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Slow, Stinking Cloud
4th-Evard's Tentacles, Polymorph, Wall of Fire

Some of those spells would be very optional like Charm Person, Feather Fall, Identify, Darkvision (if you aren't going anywhere dark), Knock (if there are no locks), Mirror Image (not wanting to off-tank, better than plate), Blink (if you have a tank in the party), Slow (only useful on some creatures, marginally useful on the rest).

 

[Lokiare]

That would make a lot of sense. Well, actually it doesn't make any sense at all that you would quote my post, say that "I have to keep" certain things "in mind" and then later say that the fact that you were quoting my post was just an odd coincidence or something since you weren't actually talking to me or addressing anything in the content of my post.

But it does at least explain the incredible disconnect.

In this case, actually so was I. I certainly believe that the most people will be the most happy if the game is designed to emulate sword and sorcery and high fantasy adventure stories. Which usually means eliminating or at least seriously downplaying the possibility of a character being crippled or removed from play due to simple "dumb luck" accidents that don't have anything whatsoever to do with being adventerous. In the real world, climbing a ladder or opening a door isn't really adventurous, unless you attach some kind of extenuating circumstances to it.

In this case, I strongly believe that my preferences are widely and wildly common amongst players of D&D.

I know exactly what least common denominator means, thank you. I first learned of it in a mathematical sense over 35 years ago, and I first learned of it in a metaphorical sense... also about 30-35 years ago.

But I don't know why you brought that up, since that didn't really have anything to do with my point, unless you were trying to infer that playing D&D as if it were sword & sorcery or high fantasy adventure was "the least common denominator" and "elite players" or whatever played it in some other fashion. But feel free to correct my inference if you actually meant something else. I'd be happy to be wrong on this.

Using a semantic argument to build a straw man. How clever of you.

Sorry. I don't play games (well I play D&D and video games, let's say I don't play games that obfuscate the search for truth).

I also prefer the high fantasy sword and sorcery type of game. I do not prefer the game where you start out as a mentally slow, clumsly peasant that just picked up a weapon or spell book for the first time in their lives.

The truth is you can play either of those with a least common denominator game or a complex game with lots of moving parts. The fact of the matter is that many people will NOT like a game that is boiled down to 'what no one had objections to'. I know everyone I've heard on the subject agrees.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Except the Wizard just memorizes both Fireball and Lightning Bolt and gets to choose which one they cast during the fight. So that's not actually how the game works according to the last packet.

And the fighter dual-wields javelins and hammers and can swap out weapons without even taking at turn. Plus, can do that all day.

Man, the game is not even out yet and I am already exhausted by the "5e wizards are overpowered because they have spells!!!!!!!!" chicken-little-ing. Lets wait and see. And if you think they're too much, I'm sure you'll be able to remove them and never have to look at them again and you're not a bad person if you do that.

 

[Desdichado]

Using a semantic argument to build a straw man. How clever of you.

Sorry. I don't play games (well I play D&D and video games, let's say I don't play games that obfuscate the search for truth).

Oh, I disagree. You play games quite well. You throw out phrases that are only used pejoratively, and then claim that the obvious inference of what you said isn't really what you said at all. You in fact, call such a strawman, even though I deliberately explained my reasoning and asked for you to confirm what you in fact meant so that it could in no way be interpreted as a strawman. And then you drop all kinds of passive aggressive swipes about "semantic games" in several posts in a row rather than simply answer my questions, or even attempt to engage me. You even claim that in a direct response to me, that you weren't even talking to me after all.

See, in the real world of real conversations that are meaningful and interesting? All of those things are called "playing games." And they're seriously annoying when you're expecting real conversations that are meaningful, interesting and engaging.

 

[Lokiare]

Oh, I disagree. You play games quite well. You throw out phrases that are only used pejoratively, and then claim that the obvious inference of what you said isn't really what you said at all. You in fact, call such a strawman, even though I deliberately explained my reasoning and asked for you to confirm what you in fact meant so that it could in no way be interpreted as a strawman. And then you drop all kinds of passive aggressive swipes about "semantic games" in several posts in a row rather than simply answer my questions, or even attempt to engage me. You even claim that in a direct response to me, that you weren't even talking to me after all.

See, in the real world of real conversations that are meaningful and interesting? All of those things are called "playing games." And they're seriously annoying when you're expecting real conversations that are meaningful, interesting and engaging.

Nope sorry, I don't play games like that. No matter how hard you try to twist my words.

Regardless of whether you paint your strawman as a question or confirmation, if it doesn't represent what I said and you then 'knock it down', its a straw man. A cleverly disguised straw man, but a straw man none the less.

There's nothing passive aggressive about it. I simply don't play games like that. I call people out who try to play those games in their attempts to win the argument, because that's not what I'm here for (to win or lose an argument). I'm here to seek out the truth. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less.

Your earlier post got me thinking and so that you would get the proper credit, I quoted your post and used the general 'you' and referred to the broader audience which I hoped would contain some WotC developers. I realize now, that quoting you was a mistake. As you seem to latch onto anything but the facts in order to disprove people that hold opposing viewpoints.

In order to try to help you out here are a few links that if you read and practice will help you better communicate and seek out truth rather than trying to win arguments at any cost. Hopefully you will be enriched:

Critical Thinking
Logical Fallacies

 

[Lokiare]

And the fighter dual-wields javelins and hammers and can swap out weapons without even taking at turn. Plus, can do that all day.

Man, the game is not even out yet and I am already exhausted by the "5e wizards are overpowered because they have spells!!!!!!!!" chicken-little-ing. Lets wait and see. And if you think they're too much, I'm sure you'll be able to remove them and never have to look at them again and you're not a bad person if you do that.

I've ran the math and observed all sides of the issue. Its not Chicken-little-ing as you call it. Its just cold hard facts. The Wizard is more versatile and can keep up with the Fighter in every way possible with the exception of hp (and even that is mitigated by a high enough false life spell or stone skin spell in the right situations).

 

[Desdichado]

Given that nobody can "disprove" my own opinions of what elements best suit my tastes, your entire post is an attempted clever non sequiter. As are all of your attempts to paint my responses as simply playing games in order to dismiss them. (Argumentum ad lapidum, since you seem so curious in pretending that I don't know a logical fallacy when you continue to try and throw one in my face.)

Unless you'd like to engage my point that I believe very few gamers are interested in a game where a routine climb of a ladder is an exercise fraught with risk and danger, then we're pretty much done here. But you did, in fact, directly contradict my opinion and then label it "least common denominator." Barring you going in and editing your posts to cover your tracks, you can't seriously expect me to give any credence that you didn't do that, because that's exactly what I was responding to.

That's not so much a logical fallacy as just plain denial of what I just barely witnessed with my own eyes. It's certainly not logical, but it's not a fallacy either; it's just... weird. Unless, of course, you're interested in helping me understand how I've misunderstood you without you trying to play games with me.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

For me it's not about "weapon powers", at least in the 4E sense of the word. It's about simple properties that make wielding a greatsword different from, say, a halberd or a heavy flail. If the core rules only use weapon size, damage type (P/S/B) and damage dice, I wonder if it wouldn't be just the same to use the same dice for all weapons in the same category? For example, all one-handed martial weapons would use 1d8, while two-handed weapons would be 2d6 or 1d12. That way your sword-n-board guy could be wielding a morningstar, a battle axe or a longsword; whatever suits best you image of your character.

To be fair, they still can. The difference between the weapons are negligible as it is. They are just different enough to have a slight flavor difference between them. Which I'm perfectly happy with. It worked well in 2e.

There's nothing revolutionary or "non-traditional" about this, but I guess it'd be too dramatical a change for Next.

It would take any sense of flavor the rules currently have and thrown them out the window. I like the idea that weapons are slightly different and only become more different if you take feats or get class features to differentiate them.

I'm not very enthusiastic about 5E, either. I had high hopes for it, but the more I hear about it, the more it looks like the house-ruled version of AD&D + Skills & Powers books we were using in the 90s. And I don't think I want to go there again.... *shudder*.

Honestly, there's nothing of Skills and Powers in 5e. There aren't 12 stats, you can't use a point buy system to acquire class features from other classes, you can't take disadvantages to get more points. That's pretty much the entirety of what Skills and Powers added.

Instead, 5E is like core 2e D&D only with ACs going up instead of down, the classes more balanced against each other, feats added, and skills.

It's the 3e I would have preferred to see come out in 2000.